Should a felon's right to bear arms be taken away?

This would go against the reasoning behind the amendment in the first place, the amendment was created so that in the event a tyrannical government
takes power, the People would have the means to oust it by force, By giving the Government a list of who has the tools to oust it, and by giving them
the power to decide who can and cannot own a weapon, as it is the laws regarding such things currently are arguably unconstitutional as it is but are
tolerated, but doing so you are potentially endangering the People

Tyrannical governments do get overthrown in countries where gun ownership is restricted too.

I find it hard to understand this passion for the right to violent overthrow of those who govern you. We've seen in the Gaza strip, Iraq and Northern
Ireland what a bloodbath this can actually lead to.

We've also seen the value in Northern Ireland of disarmament and replacing it with civil society.

In many countries which follow the British tradition, there is a separation of the powers of state from the institutions of state which the people
trust sufficiently not to demand guns.

I know Americans will never be persuaded to part with their guns, or the notion that you need one under your pillow more than you need a teddy bear on
top of it, but in most other western European and British Commonwealth countries we feel no such need to have a gun handy.

Post Script

I can walk down almost any street in the city or in the country side and feel perfectly safe without a gun. I just don't feel any need and nor do
other Kiwis. There are always some exceptions sure. Every country has it's share of thugs, but you really can't understand until you have lived in a
country without guns how easy it is to live without them.

I'm an ex-felon, and feel we should not be aloud to buy a gun. I know I won't make the mistakes I've made before, and most importantly I feel a lot
of remorse to this day for the crime I committed. But others don't feel the same way. About 2/3's (out of 700,000) of ex-convicts are released and
return to prison within 3 years(a figure you can find at any department of corrections website). Maybe in the future when this figure has been
drastically reduced. Maybe.

Going to prison is like going to the marine core. If you stay for a while, your going to leave that place a marine. It's that simple. Prisoners who
want help to change don't get while their inside. You here about all of these college programs available to prisoners but in reality, there's only
space in the tiny family visiting room/school for about 15-25 people out of a couple of thousand. And the ones who really want to be there don't get
to go. The Bullies that run those facilities(if you think guards run that place, your horribly mistaken) won't let you go and will make your life a
literal hell if you go. Why??? Because they want to be the 15-25 lucky inmates who would get an amount of time cut off there sentence. So we have
prison programs full of ungrateful prisoners, who are only there to get released early and could careless about the education they are ignoring. That
is why 2/3's come back. And that is why I don't trust the prison system to reform people enough to allow them to own a gun.

In answer to the OP's original question, The Constitution basically implies "yes."

For every Right in the Bill of Rights, there is an unwritten responsibility that falls on each individual who wishes to exercise their Rights:
That responsibility is--Do not violate the Rights of others!
Those who violate the Rights of others have proven that they are either incapable or unwilling to accept the resposibility of their own Rights, and
should thus not be allowed to exercise the Right they abused.

Sec. 34-1. Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general
welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with
ammunition therefor.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them
from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose
maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
(Code 1986, § 4-3-10)

Sec. 34-2. Use of firearms.
No person shall fire a gun, pistol or other firearm in the city, except in the defense of person or property, and except peace officers or military
forces of this state or the United States, in the discharge of official duties.
(Code 1986, § 11-1-4)

Secs. 34-3--34-25. Reserved.

Bold emphasis above are mine.
Anyone who should so choose to not maintain a firearm can qualify under any one of the Exemptions by choice...But a convicted felon is
expressly forbidden to own firearms.

A side effect of this Code is that, since it was enacted in 1981, the frequency of violent crimes
have declined, even including the figuring of population increase.

A side effect of this Code is that, since it was enacted in 1981, the frequency of violent crimes have declined, even including the figuring of
population increase.

Correlation is not causation.

I think everyone should be able to pay his debt to society and when that is complete, he should “start over.” To accomplish that I’d say ALL his
civil rights should be restored.

As a practical matter, with the super abundance of guns for cash such legal restraints have no more than a feel good effect on good citizens and
anyone else including felons who want to possess firearms can get one easily and quickly.

I posted only one example of many...Try the ATS search function with some keywords in particular, such as:
pro-gun (with or without a hyphen)
anti-gun (with or without a hyphen)
2nd Amendment

...And other similar indicators. You'll find other examples, other links to correlated data that leads to the same conclusion: The lighter the gun
restriction laws, the more that violent crimes drops. You'll even see indications on how nation-wide gun-banning results in mass-slaughters of
civilians.
...So I think that my one example above is more than just a mere "correlation." That's a large amount of prima facie evidence to grant
heavy weight on the "causation" side.

But no punishment (such as revoking the Right to own & Bear Arms) can be enforced without Due Process of Law...Like be convicted of a Felony, for
example.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.